STATE v FORSNESS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12141 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1972 T E STATE O MONTANA, H F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GILMAN RUSSELL FORSNESS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert J. Nelson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Robert J , Campbell argued, Missoula, Montana, For Respondent: Hon. Robert Lo Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. David Gliko, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana J o Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana. Arthur Matteucci and James R, Walsh, Deputy County A t t o r n e y s , Great F a l l s , Montana. . Submitted: Decided: F i l e d : IWMR 2 9 1972 Clerk March 1 5 , 1972 M 2 9 1n R 9 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This a p p e a l i s by t h e defendant, Gilman R u s s e l l F o r s n e s s , who was t r i e d and convicted f o r s e l l i n g dangerous drugs i n t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade. He a p p e a l s from t h e judgment. This a p p e a l i s taken by a v o l u n t e e r counsel who d i d n o t take part i n the t r i a l . The i s s u e s on a p p e a l d i r e c t e d t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t r i a l counsel. a r e narrowly However, i n o r d e r t o put t h e c a s e i n p e r s p e c t i v e , t h a t i s , t o gauge t h e s i n c e r i t y of r a t h e r s t r a n g e and s t r a i n e d charges on a p p e a l we f e e l i t necess a r y t o s e t f o r t h t h e background appearing i n t h e r e c o r d . Defendant was convicted of s e l l i n g dangerous d r u g s , LSD, marihuana , and a n a c i d c a l l e d "window panetP t o h i s s i x t e e n year o l d son K i m F o r s n e s s , who i n t u r n peddled i t t o o t h e r young people i n Great F a l l s , A t t h e time of h i s a r r e s t defendant was 42 y e a r s of age and had been married s e v e r a l t i m e s , H i s f i r s t marriage was t o ~ i m ' smother and of t h i s marriage t h e r e were t h r e e c h i l d r e n , K i m 17, Nancy 15 and Suzanne 13. From t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e from ~ i m ' smother, defendant c o n t r i b u t e d l i t t l e t o t h e s u p p o r t of h i s family and Mrs. Delores Forsness had t o work t o s u p p o r t her children. Defendant had a t l e a s t one more marriage, one more c h i l d , and one more d i v o r c e a t t h e time of h i s a r r e s t . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s defendant had r e t i r e d from t h e United S t a t e s A i r Force a f t e r t e n y e a r s of s e r v i c e ; t h a t he had worked f o r t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Agency; and t h a t he had no previous a r r e s t record. Testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t sometime d u r i n g t h e l a t e 1960's defendant became involved i n t h e "hippie movement" and moved t o San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a , where h e l i v e d i n t h e Haight-Ashbury a r e a . The r e c o r d a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s o n K i m l i v e d w i t h h i s f a t h e r f o r a p e r i o d o f time i n San F r a n c i s c o , where h i s f a t h e r i n t r o d u c e d him t o t h e drug c u l t u r e . Further, when K i m r e t u r n e d t o Montana i n t h e f a l l o f 1970, he commenced t o s e l l d r u g s t o young people i n t h a t a r e a . A t a b o u t t h e time K i m began s e l l i n g v a r i o u s d r u g s , h i s mother c o n t a c t e d t h e G r e a t F a l l s p o l i c e informing them t h a t s h e was w o r r i e d a b o u t a l e t t e r K i m had r e c e i v e d from h i s f a t h e r concerning t h e drug t r a d e . She gave t h e l e t t e r t o t h e c i t y p o l i c e who a t t h e time were i n v e s t i g a t i n g b o t h h e r son and h e r ex-husband, who had appeared i n G r e a t F a l l s a few days p r e v i o u s . The n e x t d a y , December 1 5 , 1970, s h e gave t h e c i t y p o l i c e p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h h e r s o n ' s room where t h e y found marihuana , c a l l e d Panama Red, and correspondence between t h e d e f e n d a n t and K i m , f u r t h e r i n v o l v i n g them i n t h e s a l e o f d r u g s . On J a n u a r y 4, 1971, K i m F o r s n e s s was a r r e s t e d a t h i s home. A t t h e home s e v e r a l I G A money o r d e r s were found which were made o u t t o one Bob White of San F r a n c i s c o , a man d e f e n d a n t had d i r e c t e d K i m t o c o n t a c t t o purchase d r u g s . A f t e r being given t h e Miranda warning, K i m gave a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o l i c e which involved t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n t h a t he gave and h e l p e d h i s s o n t o o b t a i n drugs t o s e l l . Defendant was a r r e s t e d on J a n u a r y 8 , 1971 and appeared on J a n u a r y 11, 1971, b e f o r e Judge Nelson. A t t h a t time defendant informed Judge Nelson t h a t h e would p r o c u r e p r i v a t e c o u n s e l , b u t Judge Nelson a p p o i n t e d Robert A . Tucker, Esq. t o be h i s c o u n s e l u n t i l d e f e n d a n t procured h i s own a t t o r n e y . On J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1971, d e f e n d a n t appeared w i t h M r . Tucker b e f o r e Judge Bradford and upon a motion made by M r . Tucker d e f e n d a n t was s e n t t o t h e s t a t e h o s p i t a l a t Warm S p r i n g s , Montana, f o r p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a tion. I n mid-February 1971, he was r e t u r n e d t o Cascade County, a l o n g w i t h a n e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t which i n d i c a t e d he c o u l d s t a n d trial. Due t o d e f e n d a n t s a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t he was n o t g i v e n comp e t e n t c o u n s e l , we w i l l d e t a i l h i s p r e t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . On February 24, 1971, c o u n s e l f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s w i t h b r i e f , which was d e n i e d ; on March 2 , 1971, d e f e n d a n t , w i t h c o u n s e l , appeared b e f o r e Judge Bradford and was g r a n t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e on a r r a i g n m e n t and on t h a t same day Judge Bradford s e t t r i a l f o r A p r i l 5 , 1971; on March 5 , 1971, d e f e n d a n t d i s q u a l i f i e d Judge Bradford and Judge H a t f i e l d was c a l l e d i n and on t h a t same day a motion t o d i s m i s s was f i l e d b e f o r e Judge H a t f i e l d ; on March 8 , 1971, c o u n s e l Tucker f i l e d a motion t o withdraw a s c o u n s e l , which was g r a n t e d . The c o u r t then a p p o i n t e d Gregory H . Warner, Esq. t o r e p r e s e n t d e f e n d a n t who approved b o t h t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f Tucker and t h e appointment o f Warner; on March 30, 1971, t h e t r i a l d a t e o f A p r i l 5 , 1971, was v a c a t e d and r e s e t f o r May 4 , 1971; On A p r i l 16, 1971, because o f a c o n f l i c t i n t r i a l d a t e s , Judge H a t f i e l d was r e l i e v e d o f t h e c a s e and Judge Nelson a c c e p t e d jurisdiction; on A p r i l 23, 1971, d e f e n d a n t appeared w i t h c o u n s e l Warner, who f i l e d and argued a motion t o d i s m i s s and on t h a t same d a t e p r e l i m i n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s were s e t t l e d f o r t h e c a s e ; on A p r i l 2 6 , 1971, d e f e n d a n t appeared b e f o r e Judge Nelson, w i t h c o u n s e l , and heard t h e judge deny a 1 1 m o t i o n s . Upon being r e q u e s t e d t o e n t e r a plea, d e f e n d a n t d e c l i n e d and a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y was e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t ; on A p r i l 2 9 , 1971, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e s t a t e ' s motion t o add c e r t a i n w i t n e s s e s ; and on May 4 , 1971, t h e c a s e f i n a l l y went t o t r i a l . On May 4 , 1971, p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h e t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l , Warner, asked t o withdraw and t h a t a new c o u n s e l be o b t a i n e d b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t had r e a u e s t e d t h a t h e w i t h draw. The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t and t h e c a s e went t o t h e jury, r e s u l t i n g i n defendant's conviction. It s h o u l d be n o t e d h e r e t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o c o u n s e l Gregory H . Warner, Esq, a young p r a c t i o n e r , d e f e n d a n t had a t t h e c o u n s e l t a b l e Donald L. Ostrem, E s q . , who h a s p r a c t i c e d law a number o f y e a r s i n s t a t e and f e d e r a l t r i a l courts. Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t f o r review: 1. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o a c c e p t t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f c o u n s e l a f t e r d i s c h a r g e by t h e d e f e n d a n t ? 2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t v i o l a t e t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n by f o r c i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o t r i a l w i t h a c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , which c o u n s e l d e f e n d a n t had d i s c h a r g e d and who d i d n o t have t h e confidence o f t h e accused? W find/%%rit t o defendant's f i r s t issue. e Here t h e d e f e n d a n t , who i n e a r l y J a n u a r y 1971, s a i d h e would o b t a i n h i s own c o u n s e l b u t d i d n o t d o s o , h a s had f o u r lawyers r e p r e s e n t him up t o and i n c l u d i n g t h i s a p p e a l . M r . Tucker l a s t e d t h e f i r s t two months ; M r . Warner e n t e r e d t h e c a s e i n mid-March and went t h r o u g h t h e t r i a l ; M r . Ostrem p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e t r i a l a s s i s t i n g M r . .Warner; and Mr. Campbell who a p p e a r s a s a v o l u n t e e r on a p p e a l . P r o c e d u r a l l y , M r . Warner and M r . Tucker d e l a y e d a r r a i g n m e n t from J a n u a r y u n t i l A p r i l 2 6 , knowing from L a t e March t h a t t r i a l was s e t f o r May 4 . D i s c h a r g e o f h i s c o u n s e l on May 3 , t h e day b e f o r e t r i a l , f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o d e l a y t h e trial. Defendant s t a t e d : '"or t h e r e c o r d , I would l i k e i t t o show t h a t I r e f u s e counsel because t h e e f f o r t s he has made have n o t been i n m b e s t i n t e r e s t . Furthermore y I have been h e l d incommunicado f o r f o u r months. I have been disallowed t o make f o u r c a l l s . I have n o t been allowed t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y , s i r . "* * * S i r , may I s t a t e t h a t you a r e denying me m r i g h t t o c a l l a lawyer of m choice." y y The t r i a l judge r e f u s e d t o d i s c h a r g e counsel a t t h i s l a t e date. The charges contained i n d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t dehors the record. As a m a t t e r of f a c t , t h e record r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t r i a l judge and v a r i o u s counsel gave t h e defendant every opport u n i t y t o present h i s case. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s only c l a i m , r e a l l y , i s t h a t he could n o t have counsel o r h i s c h o i c e . The second i s s u e f o r review i s concerned w i t h t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f t h e due process c l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Defendant argues t h a t h i s r i g h t t o counsel a s an i n d i g e n t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c o r p o r a t e s h i s r i g h t t o e f f e c t i v e counsel. He a l l e g e s t h a t when t h e appearance of counsel t a k e s on t h e c l o a k of pro forma r a t h e r than t h a t of z e a l and a c t i o n , he was denied h i s day i n c o u r t . Wilson v . S t a t e , 222 Ind. 6 3 , 5 1 N.E.2d 848; Hawkins v . S t a t e , (Fla. 1966), 184 So.2d 486; Smotherman v . Beto, 276 F.Supp. 579. Here, i n e f f e c t , defendant i n u s i n g t h e words " e f f e c t i v e counsel" and one t h a t he has "confidence in", he had inadequate counsel. this allegation. i s alleging that W e f i n d t h e r e c o r d does n o t support W have noted i n d e t a i l t h e e f f o r t s of two dee f e n s e counsel on h i s b e h a l f . Claimed inadequacy o f counsel must n o t be t e s t e d by a g r e a t e r s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l , n o r by t h a t c o u n s e l t s u n r i v a l e d o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t u d y t h e r e c o r d a t l e i s u r e and c i t e d i f f e r e n t t a c t i c s of perhaps d o u b t f u l e f f i c a c y . Success i s n o t t h e t e s t o f e f f i c i e n t c o u n s e l , f r e q u e n t l y n e i t h e r v i g o r , z e a l , nor s k i l l can overcome t h e t r u t h . W a g r e e with counsel f o r defendant t h a t t h e r i g h t t o e be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding i s a fundamental r i g h t e s s e n t i a l t o c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e . S t a t e v . Schenk, 151 Mont. 493, 444 P.2d 861; S t a t e v . Gray, 152 Mont. 310, 448 P.2d 744; S t a t e v. N o l l e r , 142 Mont. 35, 381 P.2d 293. However, we do n o t a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e can d i s m i s s h i s c o u n s e l j u s t b e f o r e g o i n g t o t r i a l , a f t e r c o u n s e l had a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d him f o r s e v e r a l months, and t h e n on a p p e a l a l l e g e h i s b a s i c c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s have been v i o l a t e d . Severa 1 r e c e n t f e d e r a l c a s e s have covered t h i s argument f u l l y . United S t a t e s v . D a v i s , 365 F.2d 251; Davis v . S t e v e n s , 326 F.Supp. 1183. 1182, I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , which c i t e d United S t a t e s v . D a v i s , the court said: 'blonetheless , w h i l e t h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l includes t h e r i g h t of a n indigent defendant t o have c o u n s e l a p p o i n t e d f o r h i s b e n e f i t f r e e of c h a r g e t o him, Gideon v . Wainwright, supra , i t n e v e r h a s been h e l d t h a t t h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l a l s o comprehends a r i g h t of a n i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t t o have c o u n s e l of h i s c h o i c e a p p o i n t e d f o r him. R a t h e r , i t i s the duty'of the court t o appoint counsel f o r t h e i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t , and u n l e s s t h e r e i s good c a u s e shownhy t h e appointment o f a p a r t i c u l a r a t t o r n e y should n o t have been made, t h e d e f e n d a n t must a c c e p t t h e a t t o r n e y s e l e c t e d by t h e c o u r t u n l e s s h e waives t h e r i g h t t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . This p r o p o s i t i o n o f law i s s u p p o r t e d by numerous cases. [citing cases]" The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . n Mr. J u s t i c e Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n t h e r e s u l t but n o t a l l t h a t i s s a i d i n t h e foregoing opinion. .A . I+ Associate Wd&QQ ustfce

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.